Opinion
Case No. 07-2242-JAR.
June 13, 2007
ORDER
This case comes before the court on the motion of the pro se plaintiff, Kanecia McKay, for appointment of counsel (doc. 5).
In civil actions, such as this one, the court may appoint counsel "in such circumstances as the court may deem just," but there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel. The decision whether to appoint counsel lies solely in the court's discretion, which should be based on a determination that the circumstances are such that justice requires appointment of counsel. The court should consider the plaintiff's financial ability to retain counsel, efforts taken by plaintiff to obtain counsel, the merits of plaintiff's claim, and plaintiff's capacity to prepare and present the case without the aid of counsel.
Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1992).
Id.
Id.; see also Curiale v. Hawkins, 139 Fed.Appx. 21 (10th Cir. 2005).
First, although it appears that plaintiff may not financially be able to pay an attorney to handle her case on an hourly rate basis, plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing that she has made a diligent effort to obtain counsel. "Although not required to `exhaust the legal directory,' a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she has made a `reasonably diligent effort under the circumstances to obtain counsel.'" Plaintiff indicates that she contacted several attorneys; however, there are numerous attorneys in the Kansas City area handle cases such as this one, and provided the cases are perceived to have merit, counsel typically agree to handle them on a contingency fee basis. If plaintiff has not previously contacted the Lawyer Referral Service to obtain names of attorneys in the Kansas City area, both Missouri and Kansas attorneys, who handle cases such as this one, the court encourages plaintiff to do so. The address and telephone number of the Lawyer Referral Service is as follows: 200 N. Broadway, Suite 500, Wichita, Kansas 67202, 1-800-928-3111.
Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Caston v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977); and Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981)).
Second, the considers the merits of plaintiff's claim. Based on the claims presented in the complaint, it does not appear that plaintiff's claims are particularly meritorious.
Third, it appears at this point that plaintiff is capable of preparing and presenting the case without the aid of counsel. The court has no doubt that the district court judge who is assigned to this case will have little trouble discerning the applicable law. Further, this case involves relatively simple facts in which plaintiff must simply explain to the court. This should not require any particular expertise and, given the liberal standards governing pro se litigants, the court has no doubt that if plaintiff devotes sufficient efforts to presenting her case, she can do so adequately without the aid of counsel.
In sum, the court believes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.
In consideration of the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 5) is denied.
2. The clerk shall mail copies of this order to plaintiff by regular and certified mail.